Support grows for legalizing marijuana:5 years ago, one-third of Canadians favouredmaking drug legal; today about half do

Bob Harvey
The Ottawa Citizen
May 22, 2001

Almost half of Canadians believe marijuana should be legal, a new national
survey finds.

The survey conducted by University of Lethbridge sociologist Reg Bibby
shows a shift in
public opinion in the past five years, with 47 per cent of Canadians now
favouring the drug's
legalization.

About 30 per cent of Canadians favoured legalization between the mid-1970s
and mid-1990s.
The survey results follow closely on other indications that Canada may be
ready to copy the
Netherlands and become the second country in the world to legalize the use
of the drug.

Last week, the House of Commons created a committee to examine the use
of non-medical
drugs, and members of all five parties, including Justice Minister Anne McLellan,
said they
see it as a chance to debate the use of marijuana.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal also argued in a recent editorial
that the negative
effects of marijuana are minimal and use of the drug should be decriminalized.

"A growing number of Canadians of all ages simply do not see marijuana
in negative terms,
viewing it probably as less harmful than cigarettes and definitely less harmful
than alcohol,"
Mr. Bibby said.

He has been monitoring social trends in Canada since 1975 and said that
today just 34 per
cent of Canadians think drugs represent a "very serious problem."

His two latest surveys were completed late last year, and the results are
considered accurate
within three percentage points 19 times out of 20.

"These findings point to a country that is almost evenly divided. The lines
are being drawn
for a hotly contested debate," said Mr. Bibby.

He said 50 per cent of Canadians aged 15 to 19 favour the legalization
of marijuana, and 37
per cent of teens use marijuana, twice the level reported by teens in the
early 1980s and '90s.

In the 1970s, 40 per cent of baby boomers supported the legalization of
marijuana use.

Support for legalization of marijuana is highest in British Columbia (56
per cent), among
supporters of the Bloc Quebecois (64 per cent) and New Democrats (61 per
cent), university
graduates (56 per cent), and 18- to 34-year-olds (58 per cent).

The party platforms of both the Bloc and the NDP support legalization.
Among Liberal and
Alliance party supporters, about five in 10 support legalization, but only
three in 10
Conservative party supporters back legalization.

Opposition to marijuana use is greater among people actively involved in
religious groups,
particularly among conservative Protestants -- only 28 per cent support legalization.

But Mr. Bibby said even here there has been a dramatic change. In 1975,
15 per cent of those
who attended worship services weekly approved legalization; last year, 44
per cent of those
attending weekly approved legalization, with the greatest support coming from
mainline
Protestants and Roman Catholics outside of Quebec.

OTTAWA -- Justice Minister Anne McLellan said yesterday she is "quite
open" to a debate
on whether marijuana should be legalized, or at least decriminalized, in
Canada.

Speaking one day after MPs in her own party and others said they
wanted to begin such a
discussion, Ms. McLellan said it is "absolutely" time for Ottawa to consider
whether some
illegal "soft" drugs should continue to be banned.

Her comments pushed the government closer than it has ever been to
loosening the rules
around possessing and using marijuana.

On Thursday, the House of Commons passed a unanimous motion to create
a committee to
examine the issue of non-medical drugs in Canada. Members of all five parties
said they see
the committee as a chance to raise the marijuana issue.

The decision moved the debate into the spotlight yesterday; both
the chairman of the
Canadian Alliance's antidrug caucus and advocates of legalizing marijuana
promoted the
idea.

"I think both my colleagues, the minister of health and I look forward
to this discussion and
what the committee hears from Canadians and any recommendations they may
make," Ms.
McLellan said in a brief interview. "We are quite open to that."

She noted that the Senate, led by Conservative Senator Pierre Claude
Nolin, has been
examining the issue for some time, and said she had "encouraged" him in his
work. However,
Ms. McLellan also said it's clear Canadians are divided on the idea of becoming
the second
Western country after the Netherlands to decriminalize marijuana.

"I think it's something we need to talk to Canadians about because
I think they're deeply
conflicted."

Farah Mohamed, the minister's spokeswoman, said later the government
feels it should take
its time on this issue. The social implications need to be studied before
any decision is made,
she said.

"The issue of decriminalizing marijuana is a very complex one .
. . even within the police
there isn't clear agreement on this."

She said the government has no plans to change the law before hearing
from the committee,
which will have 18 months to examine the issue after it is constituted.

Yesterday, a multiparty consensus that the issue can no longer be
avoided seemed to be
developing.

Canadian Alliance caucus chairman Randy White, normally a staunch
antidrug crusader, said
even his party is willing to look at legalization or decriminalization.

"There are lots of people across this country who want to talk about
it, and I'm certainly open
to listening," he said.

Mr. White, however, said starting a marijuana debate was not his
intention when he
introduced the motion calling for the creation of the special committee on
drugs. He said he
hopes the bulk of the committee's time will be spent examining ways to cut
into the criminal
drug trade, in which marijuana plays a large role. "There are over a thousand
people a year
dying in Canada from drug-related [causes]," he said. "That should be the
committee's focus."

Marijuana advocates were already claiming victory yesterday. "The
House committee is very
encouraging," Marc Emery, president of the British Columbia's Marijuana Party,
said. "The
only reason we ran [in this week's B.C. election] was to get people to take
notice of the
issue."

Two years ago, Health Canada legalized the use and possession of
marijuana for medicinal
purposes after a court found the drug useful in easing the pain of terminally
ill patients.

As he has done several times during his political career, Tory Leader
Joe Clark called
Tuesday for the decriminalization of marijuana.

"I believe the least controversial approach is decriminalization
because it's unjust to see
someone, because of one decision one night in their youth, carry the stigma
— to be barred
from studying medicine, law, architecture or other fields where a criminal
record could
present an obstacle," Mr. Clark said while on a visit to Quebec.

"I'm making a distinction between legalization and decriminalization.
What interests me is
decriminalization."

Advocates of medical marijuana, well aware of Mr. Clark's past statements
on
decriminalization, were surprised and encouraged by his remarks. It's not
the first time in the
veteran politician's career that he took that argument.

In 1979, Mr. Clark, who was the Conservative Opposition Leader at
the time, wrote a
strongly-worded letter to an Alberta man committing the party to an election
campaign that
would include decriminalizing marijuana.

"Once we have dealt with economic and institutional changes, we intend
to act on
decriminalization in the first term of office of a new Government," he wrote.
"Any moves
toward establishing a government system of distribution would have to be
studied carefully in
advance...We believe that government sales should be among the options examined."

Last week, a unanimous motion was passed by all parties in the House
of Commons to strike
a committee to study the issue of non-medicinal drugs in Canada.

Increasingly, high profile politicians are voicing their support
for decriminalization of
marijuana. Last week, federal Justice Minister Anne McLellan said she was
"quite open" to a
debate on the issue. Health Minister Allan Rock has also said he supports
medicinal use and
Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day has admitted he smoked pot in his
youth.

And last week, an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal
advocated the
decriminalization of marijuana possession for personal use.

"My opinion is not necessarily shared by all the members of my party,
but it's the sort of
approach we will favour before the committee," Mr. Clark said.

Marijuana advocates were surprised and mostly positive about Mr.
Clark's support for
decriminalization.

Dana Larsen, editor of Cannabis Culture magazine and Deputy Leader
of the B.C. Marijuana
Party, said "I'm glad to hear him say this. I do think the Tories believe
[cannabis] should be
decriminalized."

"Anything they do not to put people in jail is a step in the right
direction."

The party, running in its first election, got 3.2 per cent of the
vote in last week's B.C.
election, but Mr. Larsen said the support points to increasing effort by
political parties to put
decriminalization on their agendas.

Mr. Larsen said politicians are forced to play catch-up, as court
decisions and compassion
clubs show that public support is increasing.

He said Ottawa has studied the issue and now it's time to act. Although
he doesn't think
marijuana will be decriminalized without "a great deal of effort," he said
that it's accepted
that "medicinal marijuana" can aid those in chronic pain.

Philip McMillan, the facilities director for the Nelson Cannabis
Compassion Club in British
Columbia, said marijuana is becoming acceptable by all classes of people,
pointing to the
discussions in right-wing parties.

A poll released Tuesday reported that Canadians are now evenly split
on legalizing the drug,
compared with 26-per-cent support 1975.

The United States, meanwhile, is coming down hard on illegal drugs.
Last Tuesday, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that pot pharmacies are no longer allowed to legally grow
and distribute
medicinal marijuana.

But other countries are taking the opposite approach. In January,
the Belgian government
agreed to decriminalize the use of marijuana, following a similar decision
in the Netherlands.

Philippe Lucas, director of the Vancouver Island Compassion Society,
has heard enough
talk. "I think it's good that this discussion and debate is to go on, but
we've been here before,"
he said. "It's now time for action."

************ Police urge major rethink on heroinUsers would take drug in 'shooting galleries' to reduce need
to steal

Britain's top police officers have called for the mass prescription of
heroin to addicts on the NHS in a move that will be seen as the decriminalisation
of the drug.

The officers believe this radical approach will break the link between
addicts and property crime, and allow the police to concentrate on combating
major drugs dealers and organised criminals.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), which represents chief
constables in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, will announce its revolutionary
shift in policy in January. Under the proposals, addicts will no longer be
treated as criminals if they agree to register and inject prescribed heroin
in strictly controlled 'shooting galleries' under medical supervision.

The scheme, which has been approved by the Acpo president Sir David Phillips,
would operate at specialist units in police stations, GPs' surgeries and
hospitals to allay fears that the officially prescribed heroin would seep
on to the black market.

The move will be seen by opponents as an admission that the 'war on drugs'
has been lost; senior police officers now recognise that the prohibition of
heroin has failed as a strategy.

Their proposals will not need a change in the law, but senior officers
recognise that they will entail a relaxation of the police attitude towards
possession of class A drugs, which now carries a prison sentence of up to
seven years.

Sources close to Phillips said: 'We need to make our position clear, and
move towards the managed stabilisation of addicts. This is common sense to
most people: the alternatives, such as prison, are no longer realistic.'

One problem already identified by experts is the massive increase in the
supply of prescription heroin needed for the scheme. Legal supplies in Britain
are now processed by one factory in Liverpool from a single source of poppies
in Tasmania.

There would also have to be a significant increase in the number of doctors
licensed to prescribe and inject the drug. There are now only around 100
of them.

David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, advocated increasing this total in
a submission to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee last month.

He is, however, unwilling to extend his plans to reform the law on cannabis
to other drugs, and many doctors are unwilling to help patients take addictive
drugs.

Acpo will propose a national trial early next year, believing a piecemeal
approach would lead to clinics being swamped with addicts, and provoke local
hostility.

It is estimated that around a third of people arrested by the police are
dependent on one or more illegal drugs, and that as much as 70 per cent of
property crime is committed to fund addiction.

The number of heroin addicts in Britain is now estimated to be 50,000,
com pared with fewer than 2,000 in 1970 when the drug was available on prescription
to registered addicts. A serious heroin user needs £100 a day to fund
a habit.

The new Acpo stance has developed from controversial research published
two years ago by Cleveland police in north-east England, which concluded:
'If there is indeed a "war on drugs" it is not being won; drugs are demonstrably
cheaper and more readily available than ever.'

Dr John Guy, a GP who runs a practice in Middlesbrough dedicated to drug
users, said he wholeheartedly welcomed the proposals. 'A more sensible approach
would benefit everyone: the user's health improves, their lifestyle stabilises
and crime drops for the rest of society.'

Others urged caution. Dame Ruth Runciman, whose Police Foundation report
recommended decriminalising cannabis, said: 'It is not enough just to prescribe
heroin. Any new scheme needs to take into account homelessness, lack of skills
and social deprivation.'

Acpo's Phillips risked further controversy by saying the justice system
in England and Wales was stuck in the Agatha Christie era. 'We are losing
the war against organised crime. The courts are designed to deal with Miss
Marple cases, not the kind of criminality we are currently facing.'

A Home Office spokesman said there were no plans to reclassify heroin.

The Association of Chief Police Officers
will announce next month a new position on hard
drugs, advocating the legalisation of heroin.
This shift of policy builds on controversial
research published two years ago by Cleveland
police in the north east of England which was
used by Chief Constable Barry Shaw, who remains
in charge of the force, to propose a new
approach to the "war on drugs". While
the proposals were not adopted by Cleveland at that
time, they are now set to become the focus
of a national debate in the wake of the rapid
liberalisation of the debate on policing drugs.

What The Cleveland Report Says

These are extracts from the Cleveland report.
The full report is available from the
pro-reform pressure group Transform and can
be read here.

Availability

Recreational drugs have been used by humans
across the world for thousands of years.
Current UK policy ( proscription ) dates from
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and is clearly
based upon American experience. The
UK government is also signatory to international
treaties rendering the drugs trade illegal
worldwide.

No Logic

"It can be argued that there is no logic
to the current pattern of illegality. Some drugs (
alcohol, nicotine ) are freely available despite
very clear evidence of their harmful effects.
Others such as cannabis are proscribed with
their possession being subject to severe penalties,
despite the fact that they are perceived by
many medical scientists to be less harmful than
alcohol. The illogicality of this approach
( which seems to be based upon no more than
historical accident ) leads many young people
in particular to level charges of hypocrisy at
`the establishment'. This is a very
difficult argument to counter".

The Failure Of Prohibition

"There is overwhelming evidence to show
that the prohibition based policy in place in this
country since 1971 has not been effective in
controlling the availability or use of proscribed
drugs. If there is indeed a `war of
drugs' it is not being won; drugs are demonstrably cheaper
and more readily available than ever before.
It seems that the laws of supply and demand are
operating in a textbook fashion ...

Members may wish to ask themselves whether
we have learned the lessons from alcohol
prohibition in the United States in the 1920's,
from Gandhi's civil disobedience campaign in
India in the 1940's and from the Poll Tax
here in the UK in the 1980's. If a sufficiently large
( and apparently growing ) part of the population
chooses to ignore the law for whatever
reason, then that law becomes unenforceable.
A modern western democracy, based on
policing by consent and the rule of law may
find itself powerless to prevent illegal activity - in
this case the importation and use of controlled
drugs."

Drugs And Crime

The report considers the links between drugs
and crime, arguing that "as a result of this
illegality their market price is very high
indeed, as the suppliers carry significant risks".

Organised Crime

The report quotes government assessments
that the illegal drugs trade is worth UKP 400
billion - 8% of all international trade -
and is as big as the global trade in oil and gas. "The
profits to be made are truly enormous - the
pharmaceutical price of heroin is less than UKP 1
per gram, but the street price in the UK is
about 80 times higher. At these sort of profit
margins it is well worth while buying a gun
to protect your investment - and a third of all
firearms incidents committed in Cleveland in
1998 are demonstrably drug related. Organised
crime gangs are every bit as difficult to
stamp out as are terrorists, once they have taken root,
and provided the market continues to exist.
The best example of this is the mafia in the USA
whose development was given an enormous boost
by alcohol prohibition."

Commission Of Crime

"Many prohibited drugs are very strongly
addictive, as well as expensive. A serious heroin
user needs to find say UKP 50 per day to fund
their habit, in cash. This sort of money is
difficult to obtain by legitimate means, so
they have to turn to crime. Nationally about 30%
of persons arrested by the police are dependant
upon one or more illegal drug, and about 32%
of the proceeds of crime seem to be geared
to the purchase of heroin, cocaine or crack. ....
The main crimes committed are shoplifting (
by far the greatest ), selling drugs and burglary.
One research project has shown that 1,000
addicts committed 70,000 criminal acts during a
90-day period prior to their intake for treatment.
It is clear that the very high cost of drugs is
caused by their illegality, and that these
high costs are causing large amounts of acquisitive
crime. Is this acceptable?"

Criminalisation

"Most drug users seem not to commit significant
amounts of crime - their only offence is to
choose to use a drug which is technically illegal.
The best example of this is cannabis ( the
UK has the highest rate of cannabis use in
Europe, higher even than in the Netherlands which
has a tolerance policy ). The illogical
pattern of proscription causes people who abuse alcohol
or nicotine to be treated purely as victims,
whereas those who abuse cannabis become
criminals. If caught they face a criminal
record and social exclusion.

Alternatives

"There is only one serious alternative to
the proscription policy - the legalisation and
regulation of some or all drugs. Any
debate about such an approach must raise and then deal
with fundamental questions about the societal
effects. What would be the health and social
impact? Would the use of drugs increase or
decline? What would be the impact on crime?
The potential consequences are very significant
indeed - are they to be countenanced?"

The report argues that "since legalisation
and regulation for the currently proscribed drugs has
never been tried properly anywhere in the
world there is little hard evidence available",
although lessons can be learnt from the regulation
of legal drugs like nicotine and alcohol, and
from liberalistation

"Some European cities ( notably Geneva and
London ) have experimented with radical
solutions by issuing heroin under prescription.
A number of studies have now demonstrated
crime reductions as a result ( in some cases
startling ones ). Heroin users previously caught
up in a cycle of drugs and crime started to
lead reasonably stable lives, some holding down
jobs and a `normal' family life. These
experiments ( whose results have not always been
clear cut ) have not been continued largely
because they were to the detriment of maintained
methadone programmes which are the currently
`approved' method of reducing addiction.

There is also contrary evidence. Defacto
legalisation is in place in parts of South America
where the drugs trade is out of any control.
The effects are quite frightening. However this
is without any effective regulation, and without
the health improvement and harm reduction
programmes which seem to have been so successful
in the UK ( even in the limited fashion
seen to date ).

Conclusions

A number of tentative conclusions can be
drawn from the available evidence:

Attempts to restrict availability of illegal
drugs have failed so far, everywhere

There is little or no evidence that they
can ever work within acceptable means in a
democratic society

Demand for drugs seems still to be growing,
locally and nationally. The market seems to be
some way from saturation

There is little evidence that conventional
conviction and punishment has any effect on
offending levels

There is, however, growing evidence that
treatment and rehabilitation programmes can have a
significant impact on drug misuse and offending

There is some evidence that social attitudes
can be changed over time, by design. The best
example available to date is drink-driving,
but success has taken a generation to achieve

If prohibition does not work, then either
the consequences of this have to be accepted, or an
alternative approach must be found

The most obvious alternative approach is
the legalisation and subsequent regulation of some
or all drugs

There are really serious social implications
to such an approach which have never been
thought through in a comprehensive manner,
anywhere.

The federal Justice Department is continuing to stay drug prosecutions without
explanation
as a 10-month-old RCMP-led probe into allegations of corruption in the Toronto
police force
appears to be widening its investigation.

Charges have been withdrawn or put on hold in as many as 150 drug
cases in Toronto since the fall of 1999 because of the corruption
allegations.

The Toronto police force and a number of former drug squad officers are
also facing at least six civil suits seeking a total of more than $17-million
in
damages. The allegations, which have not been proven in court, include
harassment, kidnapping and theft.

Nearly 18 months after a number of criminal lawyers said their clients had
money and jewelry stolen during police raids, eight former Central Field
Command drug squad officers were arrested in November, 2000. They
were accused of stealing small amounts of money from the "fink fund"
used to pay drug informants.

The Ontario Attorney-General's office stayed those charges in February
because proceeding to trial "may compromise an ongoing investigation."
The eight officers remain on restricted duty outside the drug squad, a
Toronto police spokeswoman confirmed.

The federal Justice Department, which is responsible for all drug
prosecutions, confirmed last August that charges had been stayed in at
least 115 cases. A stay allows the Crown to resume its prosecution within
one year, but in many cases that period has expired.

Many of the cases stayed originally are believed to have involved
investigations by a drug squad unit led by Staff Sgt. John Schertzer, one
of
the officers charged in the fink fund scandal.

But court records indicate many of the most recent prosecutions to be
stayed involved officers from a different unit within the drug squad.

Since July, 2001, more than 20 Internal Affairs detectives, led by RCMP
Chief Superintendent John Neily, have been investigating the corruption
allegations at the request of Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino.

Neily has not commented publicly about the probe and the Justice
Department has repeatedly declined to explain why any of the drug
charges have been stayed.

"There really isn't any further information that we can put forward at this
time," said James Leising, the head of criminal prosecutions in the Toronto
office of the Justice Department.

A lawyer for a suspected drug trafficker is asking the Justice Department,
the Ontario Attorney-General and Toronto police to end the secrecy in a
court case scheduled to begin on May 21.

Sapiano's client, Roman Paryniuk, charged in connection with the seizures
of nearly $160-million of hashish, marijuana and ecstacy, is asking for
disclosure about any internal investigation into 23 Toronto police officers.

Paryniuk claims police stole money during the March, 1999, seizure of at
least $664,000 from his bank safety deposit box. The court documents
point to at least two other drug cases involving the same team of officers
where charges have been stayed and police searched a safety deposit
box.

In these two cases, court transcripts indicated the officers refused to allow
bank employees to be present when searching the boxes or make an
itemized list of what was seized. The bank employees were told it was to
protect the "privacy" of the accused, or that there might be a "noxious
substance" inside.

The disclosure request is necessary to establish that the officers stole
Paryniuk's money, argued Sapiano in a written submission filed with the
court.

"This theft is simply one more step in a long-standing pattern of
coordinated conduct," Sapiano said, "for the purpose of stealing currency,
jewelry, narcotics and other valuables from alleged drug dealers and
innocent people."

Kevin Newman (Global TV anchor): Who would have thought you'd live long
enough to see this. Hearings by Canadian parliamentarians into legalizing
marijuana. And even more amazing is whose running the hearings.

Senators, whose average age has tended to those 55 plus. But today
in Regina they kicked off a series of meetings aimed at looking at whether
it's time to take smoking pot off the list of crimes in Canada. And framing
these discussions is a little-noticed report they've just issued reaching
some startling conclusions.

The Senate committee concludes there is no convincing evidence that
smoking pot leads to using harder drugs.

It says marijuana use does not induce users to commit other crimes,
or engage in risky activity such as driving quickly.

The Senate also found that one in every three Canadian kids age 15
and 16 has smoked at least once in the past month, and that one and a half
million Canadians have a criminal record because of what the Senate calls
simple possession.

Ground-breaking stuff. But this report, and Canada’s willingness
to allow people to use marijuana for medical purposes, also seems to have
raised the ire of the U.S. in a significant way. We’ve learned tonight that
its drug czar is pressuring Canadian authorities not to loosen Canadian law
and he's carrying a very big stick -- threatening trade sanctions if we don't
do what he wants. Global National's Carl Hanlon has the exclusive details.

Hanlon: On the street its called B.C. bud and American demand
for it is reaching new highs. Sources close to the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Agency say it will soon issue a report claiming there are 15 to 20,000 marijuana
growing operations in British Columbia alone and 95 per cent of the output
is headed south.

"A dramatic increase in the gross quantity of marijuana of high potency
coming across the border," says Colonel Robert Maginnis, a U.S. government
adviser on drug policy. He says the Bush administration is alarmed by a recent
Senate study that says Canada’s marijuana laws are ineffective. [Note from
Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy: Robert Maginnis works for the
Family Research Council, a private body, and sits on a US government drug
advisory board (hence, his description as a government adviser). He
does not appear to work for the drug czar's office. He should therefore
not be considered as an official US government spokesperson (the story does
not claim that he does work for the drug czar, but some readers may get that
mistaken impression.).]

Hanlon: The U.S. fears the next step could be looser regulations
leading to more drugs crossing the border and its ready to play hardball with
trade to make sure that doesn't happen.

"To antagonize government leaders and grass roots leaders because
you insist on having a radical drug policy that we will not ignore in the
long term, then its going to have adverse consequences and I hope we would
be able to rectify it before it comes to blows," explains Maginnis.

Hanlon: The U.S. is closely watching the Canadian marijuana
debate and is working behind the scenes to influence the outcome. Next month
the president's chief of drug policy attend a drug conference in Quebec and
he'll make sure his counterparts understand the U.S. opposes liberalization.

As for the Canadian government, Solicitor General Lawrence Macaulay
did not respond when asked if Canada is being pressured by U.S.

The organization for the reform of marijuana laws says the Americans
have a habit of throwing their weight around to influence other country's
drug laws.

Allen St. Pierre (Reform of Marijuana Laws): Those countries often
then bend and defer to the United States will on this and, unfortunately,
abandon not only their own pragmatism and common sense, but to some degree
their own sovereignty.

Hanlon: Ottawa has confirmed that the US Drug Enforcement Agency
[Administration] turned down a request to provide high quality seeds for the
[Canadian] government's medical marijuana program. Then [Canadian federal]
Health Minister Allan Rock was forced to rely on seeds confiscated by [Canadian]
police, leading to an inferior crop and delay in providing pot to Canadians.

In Washington, this is Global's Carl Hanlon.

Newman: Ottawa was pushing ahead with plans to provide government
grown medical marijuana people with serious illness, but those efforts appear
to have stalled.

But the American angst over medical marijuana use may be a little
premature.

As of Friday [May 10, 2002] fewer than 255 Canadians have received
licenses to smoke,

And of those 164 can smoke their own because enough government grown
isn't available yet.

DETROIT -- Canada's marijuana policy is flawed by a lack of information
and
outright lies, according to the highest-ranking drug official in the United
States.

John Walters, director of U.S. national drug-control policy, sharply
criticized Ottawa yesterday for allowing ill people to smoke pot and for
considering relaxed antimarijuana laws.

Mr. Walters said at a Detroit news conference that Canada has done
insufficient research, so it cannot justify liberalizing its cannabis
policy.

"I asked the ministers in Canada when I was there: What do you estimate
to
be the level of use in Canada, and what are the trends? What do you estimate
to be the level of dependency and the need for treatment and the trends?

"The answer is that they don't know. They don't have surveys. They do not
have the data," Mr. Walters said.

"In our view of working policy, you don't make a major step that involves
these kinds of dangers without first telling the people what the danger is,
what the trends are and what the problems are."

Mr. Walters suggested that policymakers in Canada are naive to be persuaded
of marijuana's medical benefits.

"The claim that medical marijuana is an efficacious medicine is a lie.

"It is used by people who want to legalize marijuana, cynically."

He acknowledged that the United States is considering tighter border
security -- recently strengthened to handle terrorist threats -- if Canada
relaxes its antimarijuana laws.

"What happens in Canada as a sovereign nation -- as long as it stays in
Canada -- is Canada's business," Mr. Walters said.

"The problem today is that Canadian production of high-potency marijuana
in
British Columbia is a major source of marijuana [in the United States] .
. .
and it's spreading. Just like cocaine, shipped up from Mexico."

Mr. Walters repeatedly said that the U.S. prohibition on marijuana is based
on scientific evidence, and he attacked studies that suggest cannabis can
relieve symptoms of some illnesses.

He emphasized that U.S. scientists have done more research into the effects
of the drug than have their colleagues in Canada.

"We have the most powerful, successful and sophisticated medical
institutions in the history of humankind."

The news conference was Mr. Walters's only public appearance as he meets
with law-enforcement officials, government leaders and drug-prevention and
treatment advocates from both sides of the border.

E-mail this Article E-mail this Article
Print this Article Print this Article
Advertisement

TORONTO and OTTAWA -- Canada has no laws prohibiting marijuana possession,
an Ontario Superior Court judge said yesterday in a ruling that will be binding
on judges in the province and may soon be picked up across the country.

"For today, and for the Victoria Day weekend, it's a very pleasant state
of affairs for recreational pot smokers," said criminal lawyer Paul Burstein,
who helped argue the case successfully.

It was the second time that a Windsor teenager who was caught smoking pot
while playing hooky in a park has been found not to have broken any law because,
the courts ruled, there are effectively no longer any marijuana laws to break.

Mr. Justice Steven Rogin upheld yesterday a lower-court decision, based on
complex arguments, that has already had far-reaching influence.

The new ruling means that proposed federal legislation to decriminalize possession
of a small amount of marijuana would actually "recriminalize" it, defence
lawyers said yesterday.

While the new law would impose fines for pot possession, yesterday's ruling
effectively eliminated any sanctions for simple pot possession in Ontario,
they said.

The decision "has effectively erased the criminal prohibition on marijuana
possession from the law books in Ontario," said Brian McAllister, the lawyer
for the accused teenager.

Courts in Nova Scotia and PEI have already put prosecutions on hold pending
yesterday's ruling, he said, and lawyers in other provinces were similarly
watching for this decision.

The initial ruling in favour of the Windsor teenager, identified only as
J. P., had a significant spillover effect and the higher-court decision is
expected to be even more influential.

The federal Department of Justice, which appealed the initial ruling, is
planning another appeal.

The government still plans to introduce its marijuana-decriminalization legislation
later this month.

Most Canadians are behind the idea, according to an Ipsos-Reid poll released
yesterday.

It found that 55 per cent of Canadians did not believe smoking marijuana
should be a criminal offence, while 42 per cent thought it should be.

More telling, 63 per cent of respondents supported Ottawa's plans to issue
tickets and fines similar to traffic violations to those caught with 15 grams
or less of marijuana, the poll found.

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon has said he is seeking the changes so that
people who are caught with small amounts will not clog up the court system,
potentially receiving criminal records.

For the moment, however, marijuana possession remains the most frequently
laid drug charge in Canada even though courts are becoming increasingly resistant
to hearing those cases.

Jim Leising of the federal Justice Department said in an interview that he
was "disappointed" by yesterday's decision and will push to have the case
heard quickly in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

"We are are still of the opinion that the law against marijuana is valid,"
he said.

Mr. Leising said prosecutions will continue, although some may be put on
hold.

But defence lawyers involved in J.P.'s case said Ontarians facing possession
charges should fight Crown prosecutors' attempts to delay their cases until
the law is clarified.

Ontarians who are charged with marijuana possession after yesterday's ruling
could consider suing police for wrongful arrest, they said.

"Anybody who's got a charge before the court should definitely take advantage
of this," Mr. Burstein said.

Multiple court battles to strike down the marijuana laws are taking place,
he said, leaving Ottawa besieged from many directions.

"The courts keep firing big shots into the sides of the government's ship,"
Mr. Burstein said.

"They're sinking lower and lower. They are bailing it out with a cup."

The Ipsos-Reid poll -- of 1001 people, conducted between May 13 and May 15
-- found people still have some reservations about decriminalization.

The poll results are considered to reflect accurately the feelings of the
entire country to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.